A federal judge in New York ruled Thursday a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program can move forward.
The Trump administration had moved to dismiss the lawsuit filed by 16 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia. But Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York said the case can proceed, though he narrowed the claims under which the case can be brought.
Garaufis issued a nationwide injunction in February that blocked the Trump administration from ending the program.
“As we’ve argued from the start, President Trump’s rescission of #DACA was illegal,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman tweeted Thursday. “We look forward to continuing our litigation to protect Dreamers, along with the businesses and institutions they contribute to every day in New York and across the country.”
Among the claims the plaintiffs can continue with is one that argues the decision to end the DACA program was “substantially motivated by racial animus.”
The plaintiffs in the case, Garaufis wrote, have “alleged sufficient facts to raise a plausible inference that the DACA decision was substantially motivated by unlawful discriminatory purpose.”
Garaufis cited a number of “disheartening” statements Trump has made, including his comment that Mexican immigrants are not Mexico’s “best,” and that those protesting outside of a campaign rally were “thugs who were flying the Mexican flag.” He also noted in his ruling the president’s remark that a U.S.-born federal judge of Mexican descent couldn’t fairly rule on a lawsuit about Trump University because he was “Mexican” and Trump wanted to build a wall along the southern border.
“Accepting Plaintiffs’ non-conclusory allegations as true and reading all reasonable inferences in their favor, the court concludes that these allegations are sufficiently racially charged, recurring, and troubling as to raise a plausible inference that the decision to end the DACA program was substantially motivated by discriminatory animus,” Garaufis wrote.
“Although the use of racial slurs, epithets, or other racially charged language does not violate equal protection per se, it can be evidence that official action was motivated by unlawful discriminatory purposes.”
The Trump administration announced in September it would be rescinding the DACA program as of March 5.
But a federal judge in California, in addition to Garaufis, issued a nationwide injunction halting the program’s end.
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling from the California judge, bypassing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the high court declined the request.
The case out of California is now before the San Francisco-based appeals court, and the case out of New York is likely to wind up before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
